Lightwing or Jabiru?

[Guest markfnkl]

This is probably an old theme, but please indulge me as a new sport pilot student in the USA. I'm about half-way to my ticket, and thinking of getting a plane. I've largely narrowed it down to the Outback 2 [which I believe is known as the 2000 in Australia] or the Jabiru 230/250.

 

Both appeal to me for the same reason: the same design also serves as a four-seater and therefore has plenty of baggage room. I'm looking for a plane that can carry two people, two golf bags and a bit of luggage.

 

So . . .

 

What do people think? It seems like the Jabiru, with its lighter empty weight and 3300, might as a practical matter be able to safely transport more weight. But the Outback looks like a capable machine too, and is a bit less expensive.

 

 

[facthunter]

Q?

 

Isn't the outback based on a similar design to the Zenith hi wing or a Savanha.? Are we talking about the same aeroplane? I you decide to consider a taildragger I would suggest that you put in enough time to get to fly it well before you purchase it. I like them but not everybody does. Nev

 

 

[HEON]

First off, the Lightwing 2000 has only been made as a nose wheel aircraft dispite what Donkey said. Prior Lightwings (high wing) were mainly tail wheel. The two aircraft are very different.

 

I own a 2000 and although I have time in Jab 160's (around 100hr), have only flown Jab 230 once.

 

Space: 230 has more behind seats and is more accessable due to third door. The 2000 could be made as long if rear bulkhead was moved back to where I beleave the 4 seater one will be (approx 1ft back). Also the 2000 has high backed seats (which I think are much better than the Jab's) which restrict axcess to the rear for large items however the factory has to develop folding backs for 4 seater thus they will be available. Although I saw the first 2000 before it was sent to USA I cannot remember if fixed backs or not.

 

Flying: they will do the same job with the normal high wing/low wing differences. The Jab would be a few knots faster (?5kt) than my Rotax 914, holds a bit more fuel (?15L) but uses a bit more (2-5L/hr). I find the large tail on 2000 gives very good control on landing and should assist in C of G flexability. I have only taken Jab 160 on max of about 900nm flight while I have taken 2000 around most of Australia (similar to doing mainland USA). On that it was faster than Cesna 172 to give comparison.

 

Although one knows you will never crash!, both aircraft have a good record of being able to walk away if you do. This has been proved here with Jab's doing it, and although no 2000's have done it (yet!)...(there are many more Jab's than 2000's here)...the older Lightwings which are constructed in like maner to the 2000 have done it (dont know if WELL is the right word...but people walk away!).

 

I think you would be happy with either aircraft.

 

 

[HEON]

Lightwing Speed 2000SP is called Outback in USA.

 

Checked Lightwing website (www.lightwing.com.au) and it has photo of 4 seater being constructed showing new bulkhead location 18in (not 12 as thought) rearwards.

 

Unlike Jab's, Lightwing is willing to custom build requirements

 

 

[facthunter]

Back on Track..

 

Think that runs the supercharged 912. IF you were going to look at Aircraft like this, (and I think it is a very good one) would you not also look at the Whitney Boomerang. I would like to see the Contintinental 0-200D engine used in either. Nev

 

 

[HEON]

Surercharged 912? Do not know of it. The 914 is a turbo and different capacity (smaller) to 912.

 

As for O-200D: very hard to get it's actual weight of the net. In Lightwing 2000/Outback it would make it a single seater if you wished to have fuel in it also. In Jab 230 it would also reduce load as both are limited to 600kg while making it a performance dog (100 v 120hp).

 

 

[facthunter]

914 sure...More a description than a specific model.

 

Rotax 914, essentially the same engine as 912 but boosted thru the carbs. The weight of the 0-200D actually seems heavy at the stated weight . I have a C-90 which is supposed to be 169 lbs bare and it is much the same engine. (200 Cu ins). I do like the idea of the Continental. Would have to be about the most reliable option and not a bad price, and high TBO...Nev

 

 

[Guest markfnkl]

Heon, many thanks for the very informative response based on your broad experience with the 2000. Would the fixed seats make it impossible to get a couple golf bags in the back seat?

 

I have flown a Jab 230, but would probably have to travel down to Florida to demo an Outback. For the time being I'm probably going to focus on the Jab, but will keep the Outback in mind.

 

 

[HEON]

Markfnkl (Love to know the background to that!) I think you are on the right track.

 

The Lightwing is listed at around 40kg heavier than 230. You said you wished to carry 2 PAX, golf bags and luggage and I assume fuel. I know the Lightwing flys well with 270kg of total load but I will leave you to do the maths both for yourself and my MTOW when so loaded.

 

Axcess for golf bags in Lightwing would need a folding seat back and probably a relocated or hole in the rear bulkhead; neither of these would be a problem to obtain. I have said, in my opinion, the large tail should prevent any major C of G problems (within reasion).

 

A friend has a Jab 430 (rearly a 4 seat 230 with a MTOW of 700kg) and says it flys better with some weight in the rear as it is a bit nose heavy without. At 700kg I think it stalls at 48kt which is above LSA rules here and I think in USA. With the load I spoke of in Lightwing it probably is also above 45kt, but not after 3-4hr flying!

 

I personally prefer how a Speed/Outback flys to a Jab but in reality it is only one (although important) aspect to take into account.

 

Happy hunting!

 

 

[Guest markfnkl]

Thanks again, Heon, for a very informative message. Very interesting about the higher stall speeds, etc. It does sound like the Jab makes more sense for me. However, I'm intrigued by your statement that you prefer the way the Lightwing flies. Could you possibly expand on that?

 

Regards,

 

Mark Finkelstein [ergo, markfnkl!]

 

 

[HEON]

As I said most of my Jab time is in 160 (and the 430kg MTOW LSA) which schools here like as although easy to fly they are hard to fly well, thus teach aircraft control (You must use hands and feet!)

 

In my short time in 230, and what I'm told it, is more placid.

 

The 2000 is very placid and its large tail is very useful for control as my home strip is known for its unpredictable cross winds. I also like the low wing for its ground effect on landing and take off. Sink on removal of flap, common in 160, is non event. In other words relaxing to fly.

 

HEON=HeO2N2=trimix chemical compersition (I used to dive a lot!)

 

 

[Guest markfnkl]

Thanks for the additional info, Heon. I did have one demo flight in a Jab 230 and found it quite placid too, at least in comparison to the Flight Design CT in which I'm working toward my sport pilot license. This was particularly noticeable in power off stalls. In the Flight Design, the nose plunges down dramatically. In the Jab, I literally couldn't believe it when the CFI told me we were stalled, yet we were with power at idle and stick in his lap. The plane just mushes along with no nose dip at all.

 

I've never flown a low-wing, I probably should before I make a final decision. I can say that landing a Flight Design can definitely be challenging!